Tag Archives: WFA

Post navigation

Democrat National Committee Chairwoman and Planned Parenthood advocate Debbie Wasserman Schultz came to Wisconsin recently and made some horribly offensive comments about Governor Walker and some of his policies she doesn’t like. She focused on laws that, in her opinion, attack women.

This often fire-breathing Democrat leader referred to Governor Walker’s opposition to a minimum wage increase and his signing a bill into law that would prevent people bringing employment discrimination charges against an employer from seeking punitive and compensatory damages in state court. And she also mentioned the pro-life, pro-woman bills that Governor Walker has signed in the last three years. Clearly, Wasserman Schultz was trying to revive the ridiculous “war on women” idea that the liberals have been hammering on here and around the country for months.

I listened to these comments on the same day I read an article that was reporting on a recent released research study. The study, conducted by The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center was published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Cancer Research. This unique research showed that the link between oral contraceptives and breast cancer in women may be greater than what previous studies have shown.

Essentially what the research found is that the less than one percent of women taking what is known as a contemporary “high-dose” oral contraceptive are 270% more likely than women who are not using oral contraceptive to develop breast cancer. The 78% of women taking a “moderate-dose” are 160% more likely to develop breast cancer than were women who were not taking the pills. And the 24% of women on a “low-dose” contraceptive showed no greater likelihood of developing breast cancer. Overall according to the report, “compared with the control group, the women who had used birth control pills in the previous year had a 50 percent higher risk overall than women who had either never used the drugs or had used them in the past.”

If the Planned Parenthood-affiliated Guttmacher Institute is right, then over 10 million American women use birth-control pills—in other words, oral contraceptives. The study dealt with women ages 20-49, which, of course, would be the primary ages of women taking these pills. So what this means is millions of women in the prime of life are directly impacted by this research.

But what has been Planned Parenthood’s and mainstream media’s response to this research about the second leading cancer among women in America? Not surprisingly, but truly alarming, as near as I can see Planned Parenthood hasn’t even mentioned the research; and the media has dangerously misrepresented it, trying hard to tell women there’s absolutely nothing to worry about.

Most stories reported the good news for the 24% of women in the control group who took low-dose oral contraceptives showed no greater likelihood of developing breast cancer, and then went on to say that while the risk is significant for the less than one percent of women taking the high-dose pills, no one should worry about that since so few women take the pill in that form.

What they blatantly did not report was that 78% of women in the control group took the moderate-dose pills. Also significant is that some research shows that most women do not know what dose of oral contraceptive their physician has them on. They also don’t bother to report that overall, the women in the control group taking oral contraceptives were collectively 50% more likely to develop cancer than those who weren’t. Now that is a war on women.

The bulk of the mainstream stories don’t even bother to report that a spokesman for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said, “Talk to your provider about the type of birth control you’re using and make sure it meets your needs in light of this new information.” No warning. Nothing. Just a concerted effort to mislead and thereby deprive women of information that can literally be life-saving. That is reprehensible and despicable.

Wasserman Schultz and others of her ilk are the ones waging the war on women. If they were honest and were truly concerned about women and their health, they would be doing everything they could to get the findings of this study out instead of making absurd allegations about Wisconsin’s governor.

MADISON—Today the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Wisconsin’s Marriage Protection Amendment, ruling it unconstitutional, just nine days after oral arguments.

“We are deeply disappointed but not surprised at this ruling,” said Wisconsin Family Action President Julaine Appling. We knew we had the most liberal panel of judges on the 7th Circuit. When they denied the state’s request to have the case heard before all ten judges on the court, we pretty much knew what to expect.”

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on Wisconsin’s marriage protection amendment and Indiana’s marriage law last Tuesday in Chicago.

“I was in the courtroom last Tuesday. I knew then what the outcome was going to be. Judge Posner in particular made his opinion quite clear. His clarity took a backseat only to his sarcasm,” Appling noted.

The opinion affirmed District Judge Barbara Crabb’s ruling and judgment, which means that the stay on removing the amendment remains in place while the case works its way through the appeals process. Wisconsin Attorney General JB Van Hollen has publicly indicated that the state will appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court.

Twenty states have had similar rulings. Already the 4th, 6th and 10th Circuit Courts of Appeal are either petitioning the US Supreme Court to take their cases or will be soon.

“We’ve known all along these cases from all across the country would end up at the US Supreme Court. Apparently the 7th Circuit wants to get in at the front of the line on that process,” Appling commented.

Appling commented, “We finally have a federal judge with courage, common sense and an understanding of the law—one that is not in the pocket of a small minority of people that are determined to redefine and thereby deconstruct society’s most important institution. That’s hopeful as we head to the highest court in the land.

“The struggle to preserve and protect traditional marriage is far from over. This ruling does not change the fact that a marriage of one man and one woman is the healthiest, most prosperous, and most stable place not only for the man and woman but also for the children they may bring into the world. The ruling is a denial of reality. While every marriage may not have children, every child has both a mother and father. This ruling denies children of either a mother or a father. Our organization will continue to aggressively take the message everywhere across this state that marriage between a man and woman is good not only for the individuals in a given marriage, but is also good for Wisconsin,” Appling concluded.

Several years ago I received a call from a distraught mother with a horrific story. This woman’s son, we’ll call him Davey, attended a public elementary school in Madison. He was in first grade. One day he came home from school and told his mother that his class had had a couple of visitors that day. He said two ladies had come in and talked with them.

This young boy proceeded to tell his mother that the one lady had told his class about some students who had two mommies or two daddies and that, in fact, she had married her best friend—and that the other lady with her was her best friend and who she had married. This confused six-year-old looking at his mom with genuine concern said, “Mommy, Mikey is my best friend. Does that mean I have to marry him?” Making the situation worse was that the visit and the talk took place with no parental notification let alone advance parental permission.

Now, maybe in some warped universe or in some person’s twisted thinking, this type of situation is just fine. But I believe most people would consider this to be a violation of this child’s innocence. They would believe that first graders being directly confronted with homosexuality and same-sex marriage is wrong and is harmful to the children. At a minimum it causes confusion in these young ones about marriage, gender, and even friendship. This early confusion can result in serious problems down the road.

When this student’s mom and dad brought the situation to the school officials, basically what they were told was this is school policy; and they just had to deal with it. Short of filing a lawsuit, which they did not want to do, their hands were tied. Few would deny the utter trampling of parental rights in this mess.

Some will dismiss this story because it happened in Madison. And there is some validity to that. Madison School District had just a year or so before this incident hired the one woman, paying her over $60,000 a year and likely over $70,000 by now, to advocate on behalf of students and staff who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. She also obviously had permission to go to the classrooms to do her so-called advocating. Not every Wisconsin school district had or has this position on its staff.

Last Tuesday, I sat in the Ceremonial Courtroom of the federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, listening to two hours of oral argument regarding Wisconsin’s marriage amendment and Indiana’s marriage statute. In that courtroom I was keenly reminded that if marriage is redefined in Wisconsin, what happened to this little first-grade boy will not be restricted to Madison. It stands to be repeated in every school district in this state. Once marriage is legally redefined to include people of the same sex, there will be no legal grounds to prevent the promotion and normalization of aberrant relationships to students regardless of their age.

It was more than a little dismaying to hear the Assistant Attorneys General from Wisconsin and Indiana both flail under tough questioning from the 7th Circuit judges, especially when they asked what harm legalizing same-sex marriage would do and to whom. Tragically, neither could or would respond with any kind of definitive answer.

Maybe they weren’t aware of stories like Davey’s. Maybe they didn’t know that after marriage was redefined in Massachusetts that the father of a first-grader in public school was arrested because he refused to leave school property until he got an assurance that he would be notified if books promoting homosexuality or same-sex marriage were going to be read to his son. The school’s position was that since same-sex marriage was legal in the state, homosexual marriage was to be treated just like heterosexual marriage. Just as they would not give advance warning to parents if a book was going to be read about a heterosexual married couple, they now will not give advance warning to parents if a book is going to be read about a homosexual married couple.

This is just one specific example of two very real harms that will happen, sooner rather than later, if marriage is redefined in our state. There are others, to be sure. Attorneys arguing in defense of our marriage protection amendment should certainly be able to articulate clearly these harms that are sure to or likely to happen should marriage be redefined.

But it’s not just attorneys who must be prepared to answer this question. Anyone who understands the foundational role one-man/one-woman marriage plays in our society or any society must also be able to relate the harms that will happen—whether to innocent first-grade boys and girls or to the entire culture—if marriage is redefined. We must all become knowledgeable, winsome, articulate defenders of marriage if we are serious about safeguarding children and the institution of marriage as the foundation of society.

I grew up in a family of readers. Some of my earliest memories are of my dad reading to me at bedtime. I only vividly recall two books from my childhood, although I’m sure there were more.

One was Rudyard Kipling’s Just So Stories. Dad read “The Elephant’s Child” or “How the Elephant Got His Trunk” to me so many times I think the book naturally fell open to this story of how the young elephant’s insatiable curiosity took him to the shores of the great grey-green, greasy Limpopo River where he tangled with a crocodile who grabbed his then-stubby nose and pulled on it until it stretched into its current shape and length. When The Elephant’s Child returned from his adventure, his trunk which he discovers now has ever so many uses became the envy of all the other elephants who rather than doing their normal spanking of the young elephant for his ‘satiable curiosity themselves made the trek to the great grey-green, greasy Limpopo River to have the crocodile pull their noses into useful trunks, too.

The other book was an illustrated Bible for children. It was grey, thick and filled with colored pictures illustrating the great Bible stories. I loved looking at that Bible. My favorite story and illustration was Noah and the Ark. As an animal loving child, I was fascinated by the idea of God causing all the animals on the earth to come two by two to this huge boat that Noah obediently built. I remember, too, a picture of Samson standing between the pillars of the Philistine temple with his arms extended pushing until the pillars broke and the temple fell. Mom and Dad read these and many other stories from the Bible to me over and over and over again. I don’t recall our discussing them, but I’m sure I had questions that they answered—again and again and again.

And what did I gain from these parent-child reading experiences? I gained more than I can possibly relate, but here are a couple I believe are particularly noteworthy.

I gained a love for literature—good literature in particular. My parents saw to it that the books we spent the most time with were quality writing. To this day, a well-written book is a thing of beauty and joy for me. I learned to distinguish good literature from bad literature by a steady exposure to the good.

More importantly, I learned about God and His Word. I saw His provision, His love, His holiness, His commandments—and I never doubted that the stories I listened to as a child were real. My parents were establishing a firm foundation in me, an unshakeable faith that God is real and His Word is true. I learned to distinguish good from bad, right from wrong and truth from lies by a steady exposure to the good, the right and the truth.

Of course this doesn’t mean I haven’t doubted or strayed. I’d be lying if I said that. But I can honestly say, by God’s grace, over the years I’ve wrestled and worked through those things and time and again have realized that those foundational lessons were absolutely critical in building my life and my worldview.

Tragically, today I meet young people who say they are Christians who have little to no Christian worldview. They don’t know what they believe or why they believe it. A new poll released just last week indicates, for instance, that American Christians who think same-sex marriage is ok, are seven times more likely to approve of pornography, three times more likely to approve of cohabiting, six times more likely to approve of no-strings-attached sex, five times more likely to approve of adultery, thirteen times more likely to approve of polyamorous relationships, and six times more likely to approve of abortion.

How do people who say they are Christians come to these conclusions when God’s Word is extremely clear on these matters? I believe it is a lack of a strong foundation. They do not know what God’s Word says about these issues. Maybe they didn’t have parents who took the time to repeatedly read Bible stories to them or who took them to Bible-preaching and Bible-teaching churches. While there’s no guarantee in parenting, parents exposing their children to the Truth through Bible stories and good teaching provides a foundation that will be with them all their lives. They develop a sensitivity that helps them discern lies, which enables them to filter the garbage they hear and see in the world—and it increases dramatically the likelihood that they don’t buy the lies that result in an absolutely unbiblical worldview and results much too often in a ruined life.

Parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles: can you think of a better investment than putting a little one on your lap and reading Bible stories to her? I sure can’t!

On Tuesday, August 26, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago will hear oral arguments on Wisconsin’s Marriage Protection Amendment that prohibits homosexual marriage.

In June of this year, liberal U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb ruled that Wisconsin’s 2006 Marriage Protection Amendment, voted on and approved by nearly 60% of those voting in Wi, was unconstitutional. Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen appealed Crabb’s decision to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Wisconsin case is joined by a similar case from Indiana. Wisconsin Family Action has already issued an amicus (friend-of-the-court) brief in the Indiana case; that brief will suffice for both cases as they are now being considered together.

WFA president Julaine Appling, will attend the hearing on behalf of WFA and the others represented in the friend-of-the-court brief and shares, “There’s something more critical Christians can do than showing up there—and that is pray. We covet your prayers for this hearing. We also urge Christians to visit wifamilycouncil.org and sign our Marriage Declaration. That too is very important. We can do way better than 3000.

WFC/WFA Websites

Archives

Archives

Categories

Categories

Disclaimer

Wisconsin Family Council does not necessarily ascribe to the opinions or views of the blogs on our blogroll. We link to blogs that we believe support Wisconsin's greatest natural resource, her families.
We welcome comments on this blog--from those who agree and those who disagree with our viewpoint. However, we will not post comments that contain threats, veiled or overt, or foul or offensive language.